Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Withholds Y2K Fix for Win95?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the this-ain't-so-cool dept.

dbrown has sent us an interesting little ditty over at CNN about MS Withholding Patches to Win95 that resolve Y2k issues. The article is kinda sketchy- it looks like they weren't telling people about said patch, and it seems to imply that it was a lure to get people to spend the big bucks upgrading to Win98. Just read it and see what you think.

6 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, right... by emag · · Score: 3


    "I don't want people taking action based on Microsoft thinking about doing something," said Don Jones, year 2000 product manager at Microsoft. ... "...and the last thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."



    Amazing how this is 180 degrees opposite the usual MS strategy of pre-announcing products years in advance, or even just making announcements about non-existent products to keep out the competition.
    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  2. Re:Microsoft by craw · · Score: 3

    When MS talks about not wanting to spread FUD, they devilishly twist the meaning around in circles. What causes fear? Having Y2K failures. What causes Uncertainty and Doubt? Not knowing what the vendor is going to do to fix known problems. I know this from experience. I had to certify (or surplus) over 50 computer equipment for Y2K compliance.

    Thanks MS. You are still the master of deception and PR. BTW, Muth did get to this employee and obviously trained him well (there is always two, a master and an apprentice).

  3. Is this the package? by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 4

    I just found the link to the Y2K package I downloaded a few days back:

    http://www.microsoft. com/windows/downloads/bin/w95/y2kw95.txt

    Is this what all the fuss is about?

  4. Not a bug, dangnab it! by evilpenguin · · Score: 4

    I'm sure it is way too late to do anything about this, but I'd sure like to see /.ters being smart about this.


    Y2K problems are NOT BUGS! A bug is an unintended behavior, when a program or system behaves in a manner inconsistent with design and intent. The Y2K problem is a design flaw. The people who wrote these systems knew full well about the problems of a two digit year and they chose to implement the systems that way anyways. If you intended it, it is not a bug.


    I know this is techno-nitpicking. But this bugs me more than "can you borrow me five bucks?" And, hey, now that you mention it...


    EvilPenguin (aka Michael Schwarz), grammatically uptight in Minneapolis...

  5. Hmmm... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3

    Publish a product in 1995 without Y2K compliance? I guess the road ahead is a short one for some visionaries.

    So do I track down the patch, or just delete my Y19C partition to make more swap space for The GIMP? Decisions, decisions...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Maybe it's too much to ask... by JatTDB · · Score: 3

    I'd sure like it if they'd just make up their friggin' minds and say yay or nay on the patch issue. I've got a lot of client machines to upgrade if the answer is nay, and a patch to test (what? trust a M$ patch without testing? not in this lifetime) if the answer is yay.

    Kinda funny when you think about it...one of the major FUDballs thrown at open source projects lately is the supposed lack of development roadmaps. Where's the M$ roadmap for this patch, if it exists? Only so many more months left...

    --
    "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."